Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Indefinite tenancies discussed on Joe Duffy show

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Why not simply bring in legislation for long term leases. I'd be delighted to rent my place for ten years.

    This law is too one sided in that a tenant can leave at anytime and for any reason that's fine, but the flexibility has to cut bothways or not at all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,238 ✭✭✭The Student


    Old diesel wrote: »
    Not having a go at you personally but this is part of the problem for property owners in terms of rules.

    A policymaker will see "having a house for the kids to go to college" as confirming their belief that landlords are in a good place.

    A policymaker will also take a dim view that someone might be made homeless and end up in emergency accomodation in order for a Landlords kid to have a place to live.

    Policymaker response.....

    1) make it less attractive for a property to be kept empty.....

    2) when it comes time for the landlords young fella to go to college - you pay the kid to stay in a hotel or even the new co living if it means a family in the home avoids homelessness.

    It's not your fault but the having a place in Dublin for your kids when in college feeds into a policymakers negative perception of landlords.

    And herein lies the problem. If any person has purchased a property it is theirs to do what they like with it. Same can be said for a car. If you buy a brand new car and leave it on your driveway that should be your prerogative.

    If the car is not on public road then you don't have to pay road tax or insurance etc. if it does go on public road then yes it should be taxed, insured and meet the required standards.

    The same should be said about property, if you rent a property is it a commercial trans for a defined period of time were both parties have agreed to it and if either party wishes to leave the contract then they must give for example three months notice to the other or cash . The property should meet the required standards etc.

    Except with the current housing situation, even though you own the property, you can't leave it vacant if you want, you will find it almost impossible to evict a non paying tenant and when you do you may still not get outstanding rent due.

    If car owners were told you are not allowed leave your car on the driveway you must allow somebody else use it when you are not and you can charge them for using it. If they don't pay they can come back tomorrow and use it again and still not pay.

    What a lot of posters on social media forget is that the majority of landlords are just you average person trying to get by, they are not making a killing on property that people think they are. Do posters not realize the one making the most out of the situation is the State in taxes. Remember for every increase of €1 in tax the govt have made the taxes on the income of the tenant and then again on the income of the landlord.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,162 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    Even in RPZs people can get around the rent caps.

    How?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,776 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Old diesel wrote: »
    Pkiernan wrote: »
    For me, it'll mean that my unit remains empty until my kids need it for college.

    It's mortgage free, so costs are minimal.

    So, this is a perfect example of government rules increasing homelessness.

    Why are so many people so stupid that they cannot see that the only way to reduce homelessness is to increase the number of homes?

    Not having a go at you personally but this is part of the problem for property owners in terms of rules.

    A policymaker will see "having a house for the kids to go to college" as confirming their belief that landlords are in a good place.

    A policymaker will also take a dim view that someone might be made homeless and end up in emergency accomodation in order for a Landlords kid to have a place to live.

    Policymaker response.....

    1) make it less attractive for a property to be kept empty.....

    2) when it comes time for the landlords young fella to go to college - you pay the kid to stay in a hotel or even the new co living if it means a family in the home avoids homelessness.

    It's not your fault but the having a place in Dublin for your kids when in college feeds into a policymakers negative perception of landlords.
    Except they have done nothing and don't plan to do anything about leaving property idle

    Are there changes to stop having the policy where family members needs are valid? Again I dont think there is anything there for this other than making sure it actually happens and not an excuse

    My point is that PKiernans post is the sort of post that would encourage a policymaker if they read it to continue being tough on landlords.

    Its hard for a policymaker to get enthusiastic about supporting property owners who talk of "having a place to stay for the kids when they go to college".

    The likely problem at policymaker level is how they percieve landlords. If they were to percieve landlords as positive the rules would likely reflect this.

    If landlords want to see policymakers improve rules for landlords then they will have to change the policymakers perception of who landlords are and how landlords could be an asset.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,162 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    13k is unlikely to bring about a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation.

    13k could easily erect a new stud wall and increase the number of bedrooms?
    Would that count?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,344 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Really do tell. I am about to upgrade a property so can up the rent. It is 6 months notice then spend about 13k doing it up.

    Is this one of the ways around RPZ? See it isn't cheap and takes a long time. It would take 22 years to get the rent up to the same as others in the block at 4% ever 2 years. Relatives property who didn't keep rent inline with market rent

    13k is unlikely to bring about a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation.
    It will easily add another bathroom which is plenty to point to a substantial change. En suite bathrooms make a considerable different to sale and rent prices of property.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,344 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Really do tell. I am about to upgrade a property so can up the rent. It is 6 months notice then spend about 13k doing it up.

    Is this one of the ways around RPZ? See it isn't cheap and takes a long time. It would take 22 years to get the rent up to the same as others in the block at 4% ever 2 years. Relatives property who didn't keep rent inline with market rent

    13k is unlikely to bring about a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation.
    It will easily add another bathroom which is plenty to point to a substantial change. En suite bathrooms make a considerable different to sale and rent prices of property.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,865 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Mad_maxx wrote: »
    Have you considered investing in a retail or office property as an alternative?

    I have both residential and commercial.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,344 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Old diesel wrote: »

    My point is that PKiernans post is the sort of post that would encourage a policymaker if they read it to continue being tough on landlords.

    Its hard for a policymaker to get enthusiastic about supporting property owners who talk of "having a place to stay for the kids when they go to college".

    The likely problem at policymaker level is how they percieve landlords. If they were to percieve landlords as positive the rules would likely reflect this.

    If landlords want to see policymakers improve rules for landlords then they will have to change the policymakers perception of who landlords are and how landlords could be an asset.
    LOL you think policy makers are going around reading posts on boards to determine policy????
    You are cuckoo land thinking that.
    As the minister pointed out there are constitutional issue on property ownership. On top of that they already tied homeownership to residential care payments. Are they now going to charge people for not living in their homes while in care? Going to force people to rent out homes they inherited?
    The policy makers are fully aware of the need for landlords and think about it with insight into the other things it would affect. It is the ill informed public with stupid views on landlords that is the problem.
    If somebody decides not to rent a property out due to legislation on long leases and planned later use the government can't have much say. We have the constitution and EU law to protect property rights.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    Dav010 wrote: »
    I have both residential and commercial.

    I do too, I'm considering buying another commercial, may I ask how the experience has been compared to residential?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    kceire wrote: »
    How?

    There are many methods, some legal, some dodgy. If the new letting is not under the RTB then anything can be charged. Some landlords are issuing letting agreements which are not caught by the act.
    Some are upgrading. Some are changing the footprint so that it is not the same letting as before and registering with a different address.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,344 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    kceire wrote: »
    How?

    There are many methods, some legal, some dodgy. If the new letting is not under the RTB then anything can be charged. Some landlords are issuing letting agreements which are not caught by the act.
    Some are upgrading. Some are changing the footprint so that it is not the same letting as before and registering with a different address.
    Obviously anybody can do something illegal but that isn't around the RPZ it is simply breaking the law.

    Then you are getting into bizarre claims. RTB are not tracking rent amounts so absolutely no impact. You don't need to be registered to bring a claim against a landlord.
    What are these letting agreements you speak of? If you are going to claim the licence issue for student accommodation you are wrong, different model.

    Upgrading isn't a way around RPZ it is part of the policy.

    How do you change the address of place you are renting and change the footprint?

    Anyway it looks like you cobbled together hearsay, misunderstood discussions and claiming perfectly allowed things are somehow not right.

    I really was curious if you had any valuable information unfortunately not just nonsense


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    Old diesel wrote: »
    My point is that PKiernans post is the sort of post that would encourage a policymaker if they read it to continue being tough on landlords.

    Its hard for a policymaker to get enthusiastic about supporting property owners who talk of "having a place to stay for the kids when they go to college".

    The likely problem at policymaker level is how they percieve landlords. If they were to percieve landlords as positive the rules would likely reflect this.

    If landlords want to see policymakers improve rules for landlords then they will have to change the policymakers perception of who landlords are and how landlords could be an asset.

    They don't need any encouragement to be tougher on landlords.
    They've been screwing landlords for years now.

    They also don't read Boards!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    Mad_maxx wrote: »
    I do too, I'm considering buying another commercial, may I ask how the experience has been compared to residential?

    I also have a mix. Commercial tenants are generally far easier to deal with (although, you do get unusual humans too), they don't expect the place to be furnished, they do it up themselves, and don't call you for things like a hoover bag being full.

    They also tend to take longer leases. Most of my commercial leases are for 5 years.

    However, there can be a lot more damage because the property is in heavier use. For example, fires, floods, smashed shop windows, theft or break-ins. I had one particular hairdresser lease a unit who refused point blank to use the aircon or open a window even with all the water running constantly in there. Place became absolutely coated in mould, which I was called me about. There was nothing I could do when they refuse to use the provided ventilation.

    Insurance on commercial has absolutely rocketed in the last few years. I was fairly close to having to close down some units because the insurance was going to be more than the rent taken in for a whole year. Took a lot of digging to get a reasonable quote.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Obviously anybody can do something illegal but that isn't around the RPZ it is simply breaking the law.

    Then you are getting into bizarre claims. RTB are not tracking rent amounts so absolutely no impact. You don't need to be registered to bring a claim against a landlord.
    What are these letting agreements you speak of? If you are going to claim the licence issue for student accommodation you are wrong, different model.

    Upgrading isn't a way around RPZ it is part of the policy.

    How do you change the address of place you are renting and change the footprint?

    Anyway it looks like you cobbled together hearsay, misunderstood discussions and claiming perfectly allowed things are somehow not right.

    I really was curious if you had any valuable information unfortunately not just nonsense

    i am not referring to student licences and I am not claiming perfectly allowable things are not right. they are perfectly legitimate ways around the rent cap. Some landlords have de-registered their property at the end of a letting an then re-registers the new tenancy using a different form of the address eg. Flat 6 becomes flat F on a new registration. Some have reconfigured units so that more or less or some different floor space is used. Some have leased the landing outside a flat to the tenant with rights of passage to the landlord so that it is no longer the rent-capped flat. there are other methods but I am not going to say any more since you have been so abusive.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Mod Note

    friendly reminder of the forum charter:

    Advocating illegal activity
    Illegal stuff is illegal. It’s site-wide policy that advice, hints or suggestions of illegal or dubiously legal action are forbidden. Same applies to users who are looking for ways to circumvent situations in an illegal manner.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,344 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Obviously anybody can do something illegal but that isn't around the RPZ it is simply breaking the law.

    Then you are getting into bizarre claims. RTB are not tracking rent amounts so absolutely no impact. You don't need to be registered to bring a claim against a landlord.
    What are these letting agreements you speak of? If you are going to claim the licence issue for student accommodation you are wrong, different model.

    Upgrading isn't a way around RPZ it is part of the policy.

    How do you change the address of place you are renting and change the footprint?

    Anyway it looks like you cobbled together hearsay, misunderstood discussions and claiming perfectly allowed things are somehow not right.

    I really was curious if you had any valuable information unfortunately not just nonsense

    i am not referring to student licences and I am not claiming perfectly allowable things are not right. they are perfectly legitimate ways around the rent cap. Some landlords have de-registered their property at the end of a letting an then re-registers the new tenancy using a different form of the address eg. Flat 6 becomes flat F on a new registration. Some have reconfigured units so that more or less or some different floor space is used. Some have leased the landing outside a flat to the tenant with rights of passage to the landlord so that it is no longer the rent-capped flat. there are other methods but I am not going to say any more since you have been so abusive.
    I fail to see how most of what you are suggesting is anyway legal. It mostly sounds like ways to avoid detection from methods not used so pretty pointless.

    You have to register new tenancies there is no de-registration.

    You are saying upgrading a property is a way around RPZ but it isn't it is part of it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 267 ✭✭overkill602


    Many LLs in the past used to provide some additional utilities included in the rent in fact I use to provide heating,cable tv/wifi,unmetered comunal laundry and refuse free now they come with extra charge to new tenants and is now on-top of the rent perfectly legal the reits charge for everything.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    I fail to see how most of what you are suggesting is anyway legal. It mostly sounds like ways to avoid detection from methods not used so pretty pointless.

    You have to register new tenancies there is no de-registration.

    You are saying upgrading a property is a way around RPZ but it isn't it is part of it.

    There is de registration. It is an offence not to de register when a property ceases to be let.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,344 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Claw>
    Still makes no sense. Doesn't hide anything if they aren't looking at it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Claw>
    Still makes no sense. Doesn't hide anything if they aren't looking at it.

    Who said anything to do with the RTB had to make sense?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,344 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Claw>
    Still makes no sense. Doesn't hide anything if they aren't looking at it.

    Who said anything to do with the RTB had to make sense?
    Your claim is people do these things to hide what they are doing. Who are they hiding from if nobody is looking? It is your claim this helps in some way that doesn't make sense. Nothing you said changes anything or will cause them to avoid detection. A simple database query against post codes would spot "changed" addresses regardless of if provided on the forms.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Your claim is people do these things to hide what they are doing. Who are they hiding from if nobody is looking? It is your claim this helps in some way that doesn't make sense. Nothing you said changes anything or will cause them to avoid detection. A simple database query against post codes would spot "changed" addresses regardless of if provided on the forms.

    first of all nobody knows when someone will look. Post codes often were't recorded so searches wont show anything. Even if they were it wouldn't show how a letting had changed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,589 ✭✭✭DoozerT6


    How would long-term tenancies work for small-time landlords, who's personal circumstances could change at the drop of a hat (landlord's insolvency, illness, death! among other reasons) therefore impacting their tenants?

    Surely this would only work if run by a large private company with dozens or hundreds of properties on their books? On paper it seems like a good idea though, private tenants like Joe and Joan Soap who both have jobs, could have peace of mind knowing that they could raise their family in the same house for life, as long as they pay the rent on time and adhere to the conditions of their contract with their 'landlord?'

    Am I being too simplistic about it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭DubCount


    DoozerT6 wrote: »
    How would long-term tenancies work for small-time landlords, who's personal circumstances could change at the drop of a hat (landlord's insolvency, illness, death! among other reasons) therefore impacting their tenants?

    Surely this would only work if run by a large private company with dozens or hundreds of properties on their books? On paper it seems like a good idea though, private tenants like Joe and Joan Soap who both have jobs, could have peace of mind knowing that they could raise their family in the same house for life, as long as they pay the rent on time and adhere to the conditions of their contract with their 'landlord?'

    Am I being too simplistic about it?

    I think this is simplistic. Some small landlords may be interested in a long term commitment if there is sufficient incentive and commitment from all parties. Look at the Long Term Lease scheme run by some local authorities run.

    There are some issues resolve here. Long term commitment may not suit everyone. The current trend of making all tenancy agreements long term commitments form the landlord and short term commitments from the tenants is not fair or helpful. If there is a long term letting system, it needs to co-exist with short term lettings as well. There needs to be some rationale for people to choose long term/short term with appropriate commitment from both parties.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,589 ✭✭✭DoozerT6


    ^^fully agree with you, but even with the best of intentions, one landlord is at the mercy of many variables that means they may not be able to continue being a landlord. A tenant may find after 10-15 years that their landlord has died/become seriously ill and unable to manage their property/marriage breakup, needs the tenanted house/is suffering financial difficulties and needs to sell. Those risks are minimised if their 'landlord' is a company, not one individual.

    "If there is a long term letting system, it needs to co-exist with short term lettings as well. There needs to be some rationale for people to choose long term/short term with appropriate commitment from both parties".

    I'd agree and should have mentioned that in my post above. I was focusing more on the 'long-term' aspect of the discussion.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    The reality is that when rents are reasonably stable and accommodation is available, there is little or no problem. Moving home for a tenant is no big deal if equivalent accommodation for the same price is available in the same area. The whole issue is supply. Making rules for a situation of short supply is about the best way of ensuring that supply remains short.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,344 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer



    first of all nobody knows when someone will look. Post codes often were't recorded so searches wont show anything. Even if they were it wouldn't show how a letting had changed.
    I don't know if you deliberately ignored where I said that when postcodes are not provided they can still be found. It is very easy to get a system to check what a postcode is for an address. First you add the post codes then a query. Playing around with the address doesn't change your post code even when you not on the form. Very easy to do and I have done it for a government department already. So what you are saying remains pointless as a method to avoid detection and doesn't matter in court cases as it is so obviously transparent. You may think you know a way around it but what you said is ridiculous making no difference. It is like freemen of the state arguments.


Advertisement